September 29, 2009

It’s alright with me if Roman Polanski is freed by the Swiss authorities who have detained him at the request of the United States -- if first I get a chance to bust him one in the mouth....

Ugh. This is on the level of hoping someone sent to prison gets raped. You think it's cute to flaunt your violent fantasies? I'll bet that elsewhere this guy acts as if it's important to follow the law, yet he loves the idea of punishment without due process whenever it jibes with the ebb and flow of his emotions.

I'll bet he's opposed to torture, yet he's in love with the idea of hurting someone as a way to express outrage. I'll bet he thinks that the locution "bust him one in the mouth" makes it man-to-man and somehow okay. Indeed, it's perfectly apt... to punch a 76-year-old man in the face.

Such is the fantasy of an aging major-media male opinionator. Look, either Polanski deserves to be put in prison or he does not. Take a position. Your fantasy is of committing a crime for which you would deserve to be put in prison. Yes, yes, of course, you'd never do it. Which is why you are a big hypocritical pussy.

***

This post is about the Washington Post Richard Cohen, not my ex-husband Richard Cohen. Around here, the WaPo Richard Cohen is called Richard Hasn't-Slept-With-Althouse Cohen.)

Richard Cohen (the one who didn't Do the Dirty Deed with you) probably hasn't thrown a punch since he was in third grade. If he did throw one he's undoubtedly hit the top of Polanski's head and break several bones in his hand.

People are acting so weird about Polanski. Most of the excuses of him are bizarre (as were the Kennedy excuses). “It’s been so long”, “He couldn’t accept an Oscar – that’s suffering enough”, “He is artist”.

Does a lifetime of not getting into more trouble (or not getting caught) and doing supposed good, whether it be making movies or passing laws, excuse you for any manner of crime you committed and got away with?

It is facinating to observe the anger level that easily leads to a mob violence about the dishononring of a young American girl by a Frenchman. We could give Cohen a board to smash Polanski over the head like the mob in the Chicago street yesterday. Even a highly intellectual group demands some blood be spilled. Once again the Judicial process is there to restrain over punishment/murder arising from tribal hatreds under the surface. Maybe the Moslems aren't the only violent legalists we know.

I am considering approaching the American authorities over the possibility of the U.S. president proclaiming an act of clemency, which would settle the matter once and for all,' said Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski, according to the PAP news agency.

It was something else, she said, something not rape. She never says exactly what it was, but we are assured that it was not the infamous "rape rape."

Make no mistake about it folks: lots of people, including I suspect Ann Althouse, don't believe that Roman Polanski belongs in jail and they are agitating for his release.

"... either Polanski deserves to be put in prison, or he does not."

Very fence-straddly. Ann seems to not want to commit to a position on this hard-to-discern complex situation. Her posts on this subject are all enigmatic and allegedly challenging.

Frankly, I find the meaning in them remarkably easy to discern.

Folks like Whoppi Goldberg (are we noticing a pattern among Polanski's admirers yet?) don't believe he raped that little innocent girl; despite his admitting, under oath, that he knew she was 13 when he drugged her and anally copulated her.

To them it wasn't a "rape rape."

"The little tramp and her pimp mother had it coming." That's what they believe.

They're sick, sick people.

And surprisingly, they'll probably get Polanski freed.

Cites:

Polanski's sworn testimony when he pleaded guilty (admitting under oath he knew she was 13):http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html

You know Professor, perhaps he's not really a hypocritical pussy but perhaps an outraged person who like others, is kind of sick of listening to the excuses ad nauseum of how rough its been on Polanski, you know, being on the run and not able to accept his Academy award because he ran away like a pussy after drugging and raping a 13 year old girl and not spending a day in jail for the deed.

I harbor no vengeance toward Polanski, but I think this is a case where sending an old man to jail would actually be a good thing. The system needs to deter people from becoming fugitives from justice. To not punish Polanski at this point would be to encourage other people facing prison time to do the same thing he did. It's bad enough he gotten away with it this long. Now that he's been nabbed, letting him go would send the wrong message.

Sorry, but the Cohen who has not slept with Althouse is certainly not in the anti-torture crowd. In this column, his opposition to torture sounds awfully fuzzy, and can certainly be understood as pro-"enhanced interrogation techniques."

I think Cohen had a classic male reaction which I can empathize with totally. Whether he would do it or not, or be up to it or not, is really irrelevant. It's a gut reaction and a wholesome one, certainly makes more sense to me than Goldberg's (I don't get THAT at all).

I have two daughters. If one was drugged and raped at age 13 (and I can easily remember just what they were like then), a punch is less than I would be contemplating. Would I act? Probably not, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that gut reaction.

I'll bet he's opposed to torture, yet he's in love with the idea of hurting someone as a way to express outrage.

No, Cohen is pro torture and was a fierce Iraq war advocate. "Fools or Frenchmen" he described anyone who opposed it. He also defended Bush on Plame, Monica Goodling, and was outraged that Stephen Colbert mocked Bush's low approval ratings at the correspondent dinner. In other words, part of the vast left wing media conspiracy. Funny you object to someone writing they wanted to punch someone in the mouth, but not to torture itself.

Plausible when you're speaking of one's own children, but does it apply to all 13 year old girls, everywhere? Is Cohen working to prevent child rape all over the world? If not, why this girl, thirty years ago?

Is Cohen working to prevent child rape all over the world? If not, why this girl, thirty years ago?

Isn't that like moving the goalposts a bit? If one is not actively committed to ending child rape world wide then they have no standing to be outraged over a guy who was able to flip off justice for the last 30 years?

Hoosier, it's totally posturing. Cohen has no personal stake in the matter yet proposes that Polanski go free if he, Cohen, gets to rough him up. Why not Paul Krugman too? Hell, Maybe Ann Applebaum is having second thoughts and wants to give him the old guy a kick in the ankle for making her look bad. It's thoughtless and absurd.

Florida, I realize that Althouse has not come out as forcefully as you or I, but you have to read her posts more carefully.

Florida, you seem to be one of the commenters for whom the penetrated orifice seems to have elevated importance. Maybe you can explain this phenomenon. Would you be any more inclined to let this pass if the penetration had been different?

For me, it is enough to say that Polanski raped the girl. Her age, the allegation that he plied her with drugs and alcohol, and the allegation that she asked him to stop repeatedly are all important factors. Any of the three is sufficient. The actual sexual act is not.

I love that you’re quoting that as the “prof in Legally Blonde” instead of Aristotle, but I agree with you. Reason free from passion would dictate that this man would go to jail, right? Because he committed a crime, and fled the country to escape sentencing. Anyone would go to jail for that.

To follow up (having read Florida's comment), Cohen is a columnist. If he bumped into Polanski at a celebrity function and gave him a punch, that might be a classic reaction. But writing about giving the guy a punch is not a natural reaction. It's rhetoric. Cohen is toying with the natural reaction as a lede to write a column.

And before you defend Cohen any further, think about what he actually wrote. You think it's okay for Polanski to go free in exchange for a split lip? Because that's what Cohen is proposing.

"Florida, you seem to be one of the commenters for whom the penetrated orifice seems to have elevated importance. Maybe you can explain this phenomenon."

It has no purient value to me.

The law has recognized for a long time that sodomy is vastly different than vaginal penetration. That's why, initially, Polanski was charged with both rape and the separate act of sodomy. (Those charges were dropped as part of his plea agreement.)

Many victims who have been anally raped have testified that it is highly painful (lots more painful than a vaginal rape).

Anal rape is very violent and painful.

So yes, the orifice does matter. Polanski raped her vaginally ... and while doing this he determined that she was not on the pill ... and so then he switched to raping her anally.

Most victims would sense this as two separate rapes. (I understand if you have never been anally raped how that might not be apparent to you.)

It is an important fact when determining what sentence society should impose on Polanski when he is finally returned to the United States to get his justice.

Considering Polanski is 76 yrs old, a solid blow to the jaw might be fatal. I have a now 13 year old daughter. I can assure you blows to the head would be forthcoming if someone raped her. I doubt I would be prosecuted either.

Oh, to live the life of the misunderstood artist where you can rape young girls, flee to other worlds and then have other artistes feel sorry for you in your old age.

Hoosier, it's totally posturing. Cohen has no personal stake in the matter yet proposes that Polanski go free if he, Cohen, gets to rough him up.

I know its posturing. I also suspect it's typical frustration over a pedophile rapist who evaded justice for 30 years while listening to the glitterati piss thier pants that the poor dear is being mistreated.

It was a long time ago, but we give Jefferson a pass for raping his thirteen year old slave. Thirty years is not so long ago, but it was a different place. The raw facts of Polanski's crime looked bad then but look infinitely worse now. It's just the truth that pedophilia and DWI are different crimes now than they were then.....Polanski deserves hard time. But we should be careful trying to translate the values of one generation onto another. If we are angrier about this crime than the victim, we are too angry.

On the one hand Cohen is right up front about wanting to let Polanski go, and implicit in there is that he definitely does not want the State of California to bring any sort of justice to bear or to exact any punishment or retribution from Polanski. So Cohen is right there where he wants to be, playing to the European and artiste crowds. On a deeper level though it nags at him that letting Polanski go scot-free is wrong, and he's sensitive to the criticisms of those who will tell him so. So this is his solution: "Let Polanski go, but first let me at him." a win-win in Cohen's world.

TS Eliot talked about the bravado of the "mild mannered man safely entrenched behind his typewriter," and that phrase came to mind in reading the-other-Cohen's comments. TSE was poking fun at himself when he said that, as he looked back at over-the-top stuff he had written as a young man. I doubt that the-other-Cohen does much of that. Self-awareness is not his strong suit; easy and empty bravado seems to be where he's coming from.

The way it's looking now, Polanski will be on Letterman before he ever sets foot in a prison.

I almost wish we could just exile the guy. Do we do that anymore? I don't want him getting a slap on the wrist, or let go, and then getting to run around America. Either he should do some time, or never be allowed to return. That would be an ok punishment for me, since he's not a citizen.

William said..."It was a long time ago, but we give Jefferson a pass for raping his thirteen year old slave."

Well, that would be relevant if it were true. The truth about the Sally Hemmings relationship can never be known for certain, and the debate about whether she and Jefferson had a sexual relationship is now so infected with contemporary political issues that even the known facts are lost in myth.

Based on DNA evidence, only one of Sally's children, Eston Hemmings, could possibly have been fathered by Jefferson. There is no DNA match with Sally's other descendants. The line with the possible match descends from Jefferson's grandfather, and includes a number of men who knew and had access to Sally.

The most likely culprit is Randolph Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson's younger brother. He was kind of a colonial Billy Carter. Randolph was at Monticello nine months before Eston's birth, and for generations Eston's family maintained the oral tradition that they were descended from Thomas Jefferson's uncle. Randolph Jefferson was known as "Uncle Randolph" at Monticello.

Sally conceived Eston at an age far beyond 13, and after she had several other children. There is no evidence whatsoever that she was "raped" by Jefferson in the sense of forcible sex. The master-slave relationship of course limits the slave's ability to decline consent, so if Jefferson had sex with any slave it is a form of rape. However the evidence that Jefferson had sex with slaves in general, or with Sally in particular, is thin and unconvincing.

The Sally Hemmings story originated during Jefferson's lifetime with a story by a unreliable alcoholic newspaperman who was seeking publicity and bore a political grudge against Jefferson. This does not prove that Jefferson did not have sex with Sally, but the persistence of the story owes a lot to similar though less crass motivations. Certainly the story in the Nick Nolte movie is pure fantasy.

If you want to know the details, there are a number of good books. most of which I have read. Everyone will have their opinion, but expressions of certitude like William's are based on ignorance and political predisposition to a particular belief.

What do men normally receive as a sentence for raping 13 year olds? Let's just enforce that.

Reading the transcript of the guilty plea session, I learned that back then, what Polanski did could have been punished either as a misdemeanor or a felony. Considered a felony, the sentence could have been between one and twenty years.

Althouse - Such is the fantasy of an aging major-media male opinionator. Look, either Polanski deserves to be put in prison or he does not. Take a position. Your fantasy is of committing a crime for which you would deserve to be put in prison. Yes, yes, of course, you'd never do it. Which is why you are a big hypocritical pussy.

I note that the mighty posturing, defending angel of young teen that is the Cohen-that-not-ever-Althouse-diddled....hasn't exactly been busy tracking down the hundreds of gang-bangers in DC Metro. Who knock up hundreds of 12 year old and 13 year old ghetto 'hos each year. (After plying them with money, trinkets, alcohol, drugs and promises of being a regular 'ho)Who would do a bit worse to him than Polanski's character in Chinatown did to "nosy, nosy people".It's safe for non-Althouse Cohen to rant safe in his WP office surrounded by security of how mighty a male he would be if someone would "just let him at a 5'2", 76 year-old fellow Jew".

================= Miller - Normally 40+ year old men who sexually abuse 13 year olds receive some kind of punishment, even if they are artistes.

No, typically nothing at all happens to men aged 18-60 that tap yound stuff, particularly in cultures in America where it is accepted. Including "mainstream" white American culture for our 1st 180 years or so as a nation - where a lot of "shotgun weddings" happened involving 12 and 13 year olds.

Since the Pill and Feminism, the trend has gone the other way to infantilize young women as children. Age of consent was raised by law to 16, then to 18 in certain states. And feminists went on to insist that female college students, while of course superior to evil penis-wielders in every other way...remain helpless victims and children in the matter of sex - never responsible for their "mishaps". Some even see adult strippera and prostitutes as hapless little children who are blameless for whatever they do. And any bad lifetstyle repercussions they have from their choices are really, root cause, all from what bad men do...

=======================Big Mike said... I suppose the most apt punishment for Polanski would be to sentence him to serve in the same cell block with a bunch of men who have 12 or 13 year old daughters at home.

Unlikely much would happen if the cons believed the bitch or 'ho came to his crib willingly and gave it up for some fine champagne...Given many of the cons in the Bloods, Mexican Mafia, MS-13, white meth drug gangs have their 12 and 13 year olds from some unwed early teen who came to their crib for some fine weed, a 89 dollar gold chain necklace or new designer sneakers..in exchange for getting their freak on..

Many have 'hos and bitches on welfare that got to be grannies before 30. It's a point of pride.

That was excellent commentary on the Hennings-Jefferson matter. A solid essay. You should be proud of that!

Pity that the present narrative contains so much misinformation. Liked the analogy about Randlph Jefferson being the "Billy Carter" of his era.

Out of curiosity, I looked up age of consent in Colonial Virginia. Very early mating was highly discouraged because "too young" females were lost in childbirth. 12-13 was a common age for weddings or to breed slaves. And believe it or not, the age of consent at the time under Crown - English Common Law, was 10 years old.

The comment by Whoopi Goldberg demonstrates to me that the cognicenti really believe that they are so special, gifted and important that the normal rules do not apply to them. Indeed it is a subversion of justice to hold them accountable for their behaviors in the same way the rest of us are held to account.

I'm sure women the world over are heartened to learn that Richard Cohen is willing to hypothetically punch a rapist. He'd probably, for the sake of argument, stipulate a willingness to wash the dishes, too. He's one of the good ones.

Florida wrote:"It was something else, she said, something not rape. She never says exactly what it was, but we are assured that it was not the infamous "rape rape."

Come on now. It wasn't as if he was a rape rapist committing rape rape. Because that would be really bad. He's just a plain old rapist who committed plain old rape. What's the big deal? She's ok with it. So, let the guy get his oscar already. Geez.

(Now, if he were a rape rapist that would be a different story. I do have my priorities.) :)

David: This is a late response to your 10:31 post. Just recently I read Mrs Trollope's account of her travels in America. She was writing in the generation immediately after Jefferson. It was the common gossip of Washington that Jefferson had fathered several children in the slave quarters. I know this does not make it true, but it, certainly, does not make the rumor false. When you stop to think about it, what you are stating is that Jefferson's racism was stronger than his sexism. I suppose that's a possibility, but sex is the ultimate trump card. Tolstoy who was just as high minded as Jefferson had sex with all the girls on his estate. Posit Halle Berry as your personal slave. How moral would your behavior be?

It was the common gossip of Washington that Jefferson had fathered several children in the slave quarters. I know this does not make it true, but it, certainly, does not make the rumor false.

Well, yes, William, the act of repeating a rumor doesn't make the rumor automatically false. Good for you for figuring that part out.

Now let's hear some actual evidence that Jefferson committed (a) rape with (b) a thirteen year old girl. Or, heck, even a rumor that he raped a thirteen year old girl. I'm guessing you can't, because no such rumors existed.